Here we go again. You are one of the most
incoherent, illogical people I've ever had the misfortune to talk to:
-The Tower of Babel
has nothign to do with Babylon. Take a look at those two word.
Babel is a completely different word than Babylon. Babylon is an
actual empire that existed, in a known place. Nothing is known about
Babel, most likely because it didn't exist, or God completely wiped it
out.
-There being Jewish
skeletons in Egypt doesn't prove anything about the story of Moses...but
bones do not show circumcision scars, unless you really really really mess
them up. You still did not address why there's no record of it in
Egyptian history. Also, if pork was the most abundant food source,
the Jews had not yet gone through the presentation of the laws which came
in the end of Exodus and Leviticus. God had not yet told the Jews
that they should not eat pork. So what the hell does any of your
evidence prove? Nothing.
-I still have not been
able to find anything about Tiar, and I still haven't heard anything about
the prophecy of their fall, or the actual fall which you were referring
to a couple messages ago. Please enlighten me.
-Genesis tells exactly
where Eden was, naming four rivers. (Genesis 2:10-14). I don't
know where the first two rivers are precisely, but the last two are the
Tigris and Euphrates, which are definitely in the middle east; in Iraq, to be precise. I
don't know what you're talking about Africa for; Africa is in fact one
of the cradles of civilization.
-Lutheranism is a denomination,
not a religion. Lutherans are of the Christian (which, by the way,
is a church named after a person) religion, but are the denomination of
Lutherans. To be Lutheran means that you understand the divine scripture as Luther
explained them. It doesn't mean that you are following the god Luther.
By the way, please tell me the passage that prohibites naming a denomination
after a person.
You have yet to give me any scriptural references,
while I have given you at least two or three.
-There is no conclusive
evidence to support telepathy, and most respected psychologists think it's
a load of shit.
-Lack of oxygen flowing
to the brain...that's what brain death is defined as. i don't know
how she knew who jumped you...it's possible that she heard it while she
was unconscious, or she was told and doesn't remember being told. Once again, that's
immaterial to our argument, because it does not prove any existence of
a God. Try keeping to the argument.
nbsp; -Noah's Ark? How
did I contradict myself about that? Please tell me the Psalm where
it states that God's scale is that big. Besides, when God talks to
us, he speaks to us in our terms. In Genesis, those cubits are meant
to be human cubits, because that's what we can measure. Noah would
be completely unable to build something the "size of a country".
-HOw do I know animals were
the same size? The same way you said that they found Jewish skeletons
among the egyptians. The fossil record is really easy to look at.
Besides, if animals were smaller, than you'd be proving evolution as well.
-There's nothing that
says how long "God's time" is; there's nothing that claims it is different.
It's a belief that arose after scientists looked at the world and realized
that it was much older than the Bible claimed it to be. Claiming
"God's time" is a way to work anything when the times don't exactly work
out how you want them to.
-On the 69th week of
what the Messiah was crucified?
-What are you talking
about, the "13 year"? That has nothing to do with anything we were
talking about. Besides, Jesus started to preach immediately after
being baptised. 33AD is still too late for him to be crucified. He was born in 4-6BC (I think
I might have put AD in last e-mail, if I did, then I'm sorry), because
that's when it fits the historical record, with the rulers such as Quirinius
and Herod still being alive. No historians other than the Gospel
writers spoke of when he was crucified.
-My father is a ELCA
pastor, and a History professor. Pontius Pilate was ruler of Judea
from about AD 26-36. His existence, once again, does not prove that
a savior was crucifed during his rule.
-Occam's Razor exists...it
is a test that people use, not a real "Razor". It is a principle
just as much as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, or the Theory of
Relativity. I don't need to show you evidence of it existing. It is simply a guideline for
evaluating evidence...such as Calculus or Algebra. I don't need to
prove to you that Calculus exists, do I? It's a process, a tool, not a
"truth." It's a subjective principle to find the best answer to a question.
"What is plausible?" Well, plausible means that it follows some test
of logic and doesn't demand that you accept something based on hearsay
or guess.
-The majority of scientists
do think that E.T.'s exist, but please explain to me how that violates
Einstein's law of relativity? It's believed that there are aliens
out there...it's just too big of a universe out there for us to be alone.
That doesn't violate relativity. If they have faster than light travel
and they're visiting here, that might, but the existence of ETs does not
mean that they're visiting here.
-What the hell are you
talking about here? "I do not belive all the mass in an object is
the exact eqazation Einstein stated I belive it is more." That's
incoherent. E=mc^2 means, quite simply, that energy can be converted
into matter and vice versa...this has been DEMONSTRATED...ask the people
of Hiroshima or Nagasaki...or anyone who works at a nuclear power plant,
for that matter.
-Just because you can't
explain the relation between time and mass approaching the speed of light
does not mean that they're false. It's complex physics which will
most likely never involve us at all. Space curving around gravity
is not improvable...it's easily seen from celestial mechanics. If
you look at the New York Times science sections about every week or two
they have stuff about gravity wells bending light from others stars.
It's very easy to prove.
-One of the biggest problems
in using Occam's Razor is that it is subjective...different people use
different levels of logic. Your problem is that you refuse to use
logic at all...that's why Occam's Razor is difficult for you to use.
-How am I trying to
prove philosophy wrong with philosophy? And why is that a problem?
Kant used philosophy to contradict Hegel. "Philosophy" is not a monolithic
thing. Philosophical principles are by nature contradictory. They've been fighting
it out since Socrates started arguing with the Sophists.
-Do you have any fucking
clue what an atheist is? An atheist is (here's me using my Webster's
College Dictionary 1991 edition) n. a person who denies or disbelieves
the existence of a supreme being or beings. An ATHEIST denies the
existence of a diety or of divine beings. Atheism is n. the doctrine
or belief that there is no God. Well, that couldn't sum me up any
better. I do not believe in God; any God whatsoever. How does
that make me an agnostic. I'm not presumptious enough to say that
I know how the universe came into being; but I do NOT believe in God.
-I don't believe that God
created the universe...when did I say that [I did]? Please quote me directly,
and make sure that I wasn't speaking in the hypothetical third person.
Find me something that says "I believe", not "some may believe" or "it
may..."
-I don't think that
pastors are naturally wiser men, or anything like that. I do know
that my dad has gone through years of Biblical study, and years of reading
the Bible, talking to other people who have, and reading texts about religious
matters, and in that regard, I would definitely trust him about religious
matters more than most people. I have had pastors who haven't know
anything about what they were talking about, but there are some who have
put their life into their study.
-How do we have a sense of
right or wrong? Well, I personally consider myself a pretty moral
person with God or anyone to tell me what to do. Man is a social
animal, and most other animals instictively know how to deal with each other. I believe
that our "moral" sense comes out of a highly intellectualized social instinct. It comes from our natural being, and millenia of experimenting on the best
ways to deal with each other. There are very few things that are
considered "wrong" in all countries. Immanuel Kant dealt with questions
of where our morals come from, whether they are empirical or a priori,
so if you want to know more, try reading "Grounding for the Metaphysics
of Morals"...I recommend the Hackett version (ISBN 0-87220-166-X) to get
into it more. How do we decide what is right or wrong? Well,
on a case by case evaluation. Is lying always wrong? If Nazis
came to your door when you're harboring Jews, is it wrong to lie about
them being in your basement? Probably not. "without one to decide
it, how do WE decide what is right or wrong?" I do so without any
outside legislation from a God. I follow what I can do in society,
and what I think is right myself morally...my morals come from my social
influence and from my own personal judgements.
-You haven't proven
a damn thing. You still blatantly ignore logic, you don't support
your statements with anything other than "I heard" or "My dad tells me".
You haven't proven my "Damned Razor" wrong at all. My one "vallid" argument in your
mind: "The argument of a human growth being something that groes from simple
to complex. That is ludiocris as we have been trying to crack the DNA code
for decades yet are only now are coming close to it a single cell being
simple?" Well, yes, it is simple, when you compare it to the organization
of an entire body. Things can go from simpler to more complex.
I never said that it was "simple" on it's own, I said it went from a simpler
single cell to the incredible complex amalgam that is the entire human
body with it's trillions of cells.
-"God does not play
dice with the universe" This was Einstein objecting to the random
element at the heart of modern quantum physics (do you know anything about
quantum physics?), not "how the universe could be able to allow the coincedences
to exist to support life". Most scientists working with quantum physics
believe that Einstein was wrong about this one anyway. Stephen Hawking
said: "God not only plays dice, he also sometimes throws the dice where
they cannot be seen." Neils Bohr expanded on that, "Nor is it our
business to prescribe to God how He should run the world." The key
of this (whether they were talking about God as a literal God, or just
as a term to sum up "the laws of nature"...Hawking isn't very spiritual)
is that it's saying that we can't possibly understand the whole underpinings
of the unvierse, and it is not our business to make these claims.
Bohr's comment menas that we need to go to science, not bring it to us. Saying
something does not make it
true. Scientific statements should be descriptive, not creative.
Or, to put it yet another way, it is not the business of science to create
the laws of the world, but to describe how they work.
Now I'm going to resend
all the questions you didn't answer or respond to. Please do so,
or I will contine to send them.

> >Animals such as the Amazonian animals would
never be put on the boat,
> >since Noah would never be able to go over
there and pick them up. There's
> >not enough water to flood the entire earth
(forget what you saw in
> >"Waterworld".) There's no signs of the
tremendous flash flooding that
> >must have occurred from 40 nights of rain
(which wouldnt' be enough to
> >cover up the world anyway). Flash flooding
leaves very distinct marks,
> >that differ from regular flooding (I know,
I've been in a flash flood
> >before). Don't point to other cultures,
like The Epic of Gilgamesh, which
> >also has records of an apocoplytic flood.
The most likely explanation for
> >that is that early civilizations started around
rivers, which flooded,
> >causing massive problems, so a common fear
among most civilizations is of
> >a massive flood that could completely wipe
them out.
> > -Give me scriptural quotes that tell about
the Euro. "ten nations
> >shall have the same currency"...well, more
than ten nations have
> >it...prophecy has to be precise...it says
what happens...anything else can
> >just be coincidence.
> > -No, you're not using logic now.

[I have to admit that by this time I was getting a bit harsh; but
you know how much blatant stupidity bothers me, and this guy was definitely
showing it.]From: "JOEY"
To: "Chris Stuart" <Chris.Stuart@valpo.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 21:23:49 -0700

You know not of the Bible it states that a thousand
years is a day to God It also says that a church named after a person is
not a Christian church in the first chapter of romans

Where's your citings? I need a passage...you
have yet to give me any concrete evidence whatsoever. I'm looking
at the first chapter of Romans, and I'm not finding anything whatsoever
in support of what you are saying. And besides, that still doesn't conflict
with "Lutheranism".
And how about responding to
the rest of the e-mail? it still stands...I'm waiting.

I believe I found your "Tiar". The actual
name of the city is Tyre, which was an incredible merchant city back in
the time of the Old Testament. It is prophesied in Ezekiel 26 that
"They shall destroy the walls of Tyre and break down its towers.
I will scrape its soul from it and make it a bare rock. It shall
become, in the midst of the sea, a place for spreading nets" (Ez. 26:4-5).
Later he says "When I make you a city laid waste, like cities that are
not inhabited...I will bring you to a dreadful end, and you shall be no
more; though sought for, you will never be found again" (Ez. 26:19,21).
Now, the person sent to destroy the walls of Tyre and cast them out into
the seas was King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon (26:7). This wasn't a prophesy
that was aimed at something 3000-4000 years in the future. This was
aimed at something that was currently going on at the time. Nebuchadrezzar
never managed to destroy the city...he seiged it for 13 years, but didn't
take it. What's most likely is that Ezekiel was written during the
seige of Nebuchadrezzar, and the author was sure it would fall. Tyre
was eventually taken by Alexander the Great, who managed to build a causeway
out to the city (which was on an island). This is what people interpret
as him taking down the city and throwing it into the sea...but the city
wasn't destroyed. It still exists. So none of the prophesies
were true. The city wasn't taken by Nebuchadrezzar, and it wasn't
destroyed, and it surely hasn't been lost. Tyre as a city still exists.
It's population is about 15,000. It is now known as Sour, and is
part of Lebanon. Biblical quotes are from the New Revised Standard
Version, the rest of the info comes from Microsoft Encarta 99, and http://www.mit.edu:8001/activities/lebanon/Map/m_tyre.html
Now, I've provided references for my info, so you
can check up on it yourself...you might try doing the same in reverse.

It is now a fishing town if you research it hence
A place to spread nets neither one of us is going to change our minds so
lets end this whole thing.
PS: Don't Quote the English Bible I do not Belive
in it. Learn yettish and Greek first than you can quote it
PPS: why do you think it was set at that time?
I have seen nothing in your scriptual evidencence to support that. Plus
I notice you haven't replied to my Daniel Quatation or my life after Death
evidence oh well. please do not e-mail me again as I may have cancer and
cannot argue anything at this time until I have been treated.

["yettish" equals "yiddish", a mix of Hebrew and German that groups of modern
day Jews use (I don't know how many, and I don't know what the language of Israel is now
[It's Hebrew]),
but the original Bible was never written in "yettish".]From: "JOEY"
To: "Chris Stuart" <Chris.Stuart@valpo.edu>
Subject: Re: "Tiar"
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 03:32:22 -0700

By the way I am quite sure the Hebrew waste is
vary simmilar to the English Sour as in sour milk so therefore that is
an example of The Bible predicting a coincedence involving three diffrent
langauges

oops it's sour isn't it? Anyway it's a sea town
now pluss it did get concurred and all the stones were cast in the sea
damn impressive if you ask me anyway Goodbye
Wait maybe I should tell you..
The reason I belive the Bible has nothing to
do with logic.
It has to do with an experence.
I myself have had a nde but not of a white light
Everyone who doesn't belive in God says they
say we all see the same thing. I didn't. I saw a red river of flame
a place where I saw soals burning all around me. What foolish people may
call Hell but what I have learned is really called Shiol. As I looked up
I saw a bright light and heard laughter coming from up high as if someone
was mocking me as if.. As if it were the sounds of the saved laughing at
our punishment. My heart stopped one night as I slept for a few seconds
my mother was scared as hell (no pun intended)
I truly belive it was God telling me to change
my ways. You may think I am lieing or I am crazy or it was some hormone
or dream I do not. You are welcome to belive what you like. But I saw and
felt the burning and smelled the soals burnig like flesh. I had never smelled
burnt flesh before but knew it than. I wish noone to see that sight so
therefore that is why I argue to prove the Bible correct
God bless you
Joey

[Well, it was at this point (the last three e-mails) that I realized
that this conversation had gotten really interesting, and more than
a bit scary. The polite (and intelligent) thing to do would be to just let it stop.
Well, I acted impulsively. I honestly meant just to send my condolences,
and sign off...honestly.]From: Chris Stuart <Chris.Stuart@valpo.edu>
To: JOEY
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 14:38:00 -0500 (Central
Daylight Time)

Joey,
I apologize and I hope that your treatment
goes well. As much as we have disagreed, I wish only the best for
you. I wil ask my Christian friends to pray for you. I will end this
whole thing, after responding briefly to the points that you brought up.
-Tyre has always been a fishing town; it
is oN an island right by the sea, and so fishing, "spreading nets" has
always been done there, with no prophesy from God necessary.
-I'm sorry, but I can only quote from English
Bibles, since I can only read English (and a bit of German). Can
you read yiddish (which is what I assume you meant by "yettish") or Greek?
I can partially read yiddish, since it is a hebrewized dialect of
German. However, learning yiddish is not the proper way to get closer
to a direct translation of the Bible, since the Old Testament was written
in Hebrew, not yiddish. Greek would be helpful in reading the New
Testament.
-Sour (the ex-city of Tyre), is more properly
pronounced as Sur, or Soor. It has no connection to the Hebrew word
to the Hebrew waste (I asked a friend of mine who happens to be a Hebrew
major...I know that's not great proof, but it's better than what you gave
me). Hebrew and English have virutally no connection whatsoever as
far as languages go. Besides, the name of the town is Lebanese (it's
in Lebenon), not Hebrew. This name for the town therefore is a coincidence
involving someone wanting to see the hand of God in everything.
It's like saying the Russian word for soul "sertsa" sounding like Certs
(the candy) means that candy is a more divine and spiritual candy.

It's been interesting talking to you. As
I said before, I hope your treatment goes well.

Thanks I am not sure yet if I have cancer yet I hope
I don't but for my final argument you must relise there are sevaral points
in the Bible that are metaphorical espicially Prophetic verses I would
like you to remember in Jonah there is a city God said he would destroy.
He did not until sevaral books later (I belive it was Daniel but I will
look that up). when I am feeling better we can cotinue this disscussion.
No I do not read yiddish but there are lexicon's that can translate Yiddish
and Greek words for exampl many belive that it was light created on the
first day but indead it was knowledge according to the Hebrew version.
Anyway I will learn Greek and possibly Yiddish too (I know people that
can but I don't completly trust that) later
Joey

And after that I was pretty sure that the conversation was over. His argument is a
confusing mishmash of different theological arguments, most of them
what I call "fundamentalist irrational"
and not very well founded. His last example of there being "metaphorical Prophetic"
passages completely undercuts his previous attempt to explain the Bible
literally. Sigh...what a long strange trip it'd been.

Hey asshole I am not a "Christian fundementalist" in
fact the closest thing I have to a "religion" is
Gnosicism. I knew it was a bad idea to e-mail you in
the first place those years ago when I did. You don't
know who I am yet you slandered me on the internet
take that crap down or you'll be hearing from my lawer
(yes I DO have a lawyer). I am more itellegent than
you think I am I happen to be an honor student in
college and the operator of a web design buisness. The
only reason I e-mailed you was to make you see a
diffrent point of you and since as I said I am not a
Christian fundementalist I did not have the info I
needed. I'll contact the school that hostes your page
too and let them know you slandered me and yes this is
legally slander I used to date a lawyers daughter.

Just on a historical note Christianity is not named
after a person. Christ is a title like Ceaser not a
name. MORON!

So, it's back on again. And his argument re: "Christ" and "Christianity" seems to be splitting hairs a bit, but I can ignore it, I guess, since he ignored my point about "Lutheranism" being a denomination of "Christianity," not a religion in and of itself. Not sure he understands the word, anyway.From: Chris Stuart To: JOEY
Subject : My site
Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 21:42:50 +0000

Mr. Chastain,

I am rather impressed that you even found the site. May I ask how you found the site? Part of the reason that I asked was that there's absolutely nothing to connect it specifically with you, other than the name, a fairly common name, I might add. Did you do a google search on your name or something?

Anyway, by any definition of the word, you do count as a "Christian fundamentalist", at least in the context of the emails that you sent me so many years ago. Maybe you've changed now, but the arguments you put forth define you as, A) someone who puts their faith in Christ, and b) someone who advocates strict literal readings of the Bible. The first (a, that is) identifies you as a Christian, and the second (b) defines you as a fundamentalist. While those may be rather loaded terms, if we're talking libel, we're far from it. In fact, if we go to my site and examine your statements, you admit to being, not only a gnostic, but a Christian as well.

And remember, this entire thing happened because you emailed me first, of your own free will, to harass me for my posting on aintitcoolnews.com. If you thought it was a bad idea, then you shouldn't have done it in the first place.

No, I don't know who you are. However, I have not slandered you. I hardly said anything at all about you. What I HAVE done is posted our conversation online, and let other people read them. Slander is a big word, libel is another, and they both have very definite legal terms. Talk to your lawyer about it further, if you wish. And if your lawyer wants to get into contact with me, let me know. Or just give him my email address. Loki814@hotmail.com

Just as a side note, does everyone have a lawyer these days? And not only do you have a lawyer, but you also seem to have an ex-girlfriend whose father was a lawyer. Are they the same person, and does that change the attorney-client relationship at all? Impressive. And apparently you and your girlfriend had long romantic conversations about slander and libel when you were together.

With that said, there are more polite ways to request someone to take down their
site...starting out with "hey asshole" is probably not the best way to do it.

Contacting my school is probably not the best way to go about it, either, as I
graduated almost a year ago (with honors and a double degree, actually, since we're
comparing degree sizes here), and my site isn't located there either. And I'm currently
in Ireland right now, so I'm outside of U.S. jurisdiction in the first place.

And no, for the last time. It's not legal slander, despite what your lawyer
ex-girlfriend might have said. Slander would be if I were telling people false
things about you. Verbally. That's its definition. And it's not libel either.

Still, I am interested, are you willing to continue on our conversation that we had
years ago? I think it's still an interesting conversation on the existence of god and
the meaning of humanity's place here on earth.

I would be intrested if not for the fact that every
time I e-mailed before you put it oon your web page
and insulted me. The fact of the matter is is that
being dyslexic I can't type very well or spell in most
cases and you actually find that a messure of
itellegnce. Never mind the fact that I may be able to
function in society better than most people without my
learning disability never mind the fact that my IQ is
beyond the genius level or that I'm an honor student
in College or the fact I'm an euntropunur or a
freelance journalist or the fact that I've written
severial screenplays or sing classical music. Just
throw oup ittellegence rankings on everyone based on
spelling and grammer. If you rtake down the postings
about me if you do not insult my intellegence if you
do not critcise my beliefs or anyone elses than I will
continue the conversation. Another thing is you only
attacked one religion if Christianity is false it
proves nothing. Being a follower of the religion of
secrets we are aware of this. Many gnostics consider
themselves christian but we don not believe in literal
interpetation of any holy book. Please take down the
insults you have put about mee from your site than we
shall continue this discussion.

Since you asked me to, I have removed all of your emails from my webpage. My responses to your comments remain on, but your emails have been removed. And, as interesting as it would be to continue to argue with you, I have realized that I am in Ireland to experience Ireland...I will return to the States at the end of the year...maybe we can continue our conversations then, but while I'm overseas I might as well spend my time focusing on being overseas.

However, I would like to respond to your last email.

> and insulted me. The fact of the matter is is that
> being dyslexic I can't type very well or spell in most
> cases and you actually find that a messure of
> itellegnce. Never mind the fact that I may be able to
> function in society better than most people without my
> learning disability never mind the fact that my IQ is
> beyond the genius level or that I'm an honor student
> in College or the fact I'm an euntropunur or a
> freelance journalist or the fact that I've written
> severial screenplays or sing classical music.

As these are all unverifiable completely, I can't really respond to them. I "insulted" your intelligence not based on your spelling, which is in the normal atrocious state of most Americans these days (though if you claim to be an entrepreneur, a journalist, and a person with a beyond genius IQ...all unverifiable, or if you're writing screenplays, even as someone with crippling dyslexia you might want to invest in a dictionary). No, the only way I have to gage your intelligence is through the emails that you sent to me. Not how you spelled words, but the words you spelled, forming the arguments you used to attack my points, was lazy and incoherent and generally (dare I say it) not very intelligent. That was the criteria I used to judge your intelligence. Now, maybe you are as brilliant as you claim to be. But in the conversations we've had, you seem to be holding that brilliance in check.

> about me if you do not insult my intellegence if you
> do not critcise my beliefs or anyone elses than I will
> continue the conversation.

It is impossible to have a disagreement with someone without criticising their beliefs. I know it's considered a fad these days that everyone should get along with each other and respect their opinion, and that's okay, up to a point, but you just can't operate in a state where you don't have the freedom to disagree with someone, and attack (which is, I grant, a loaded and strong word to use, but an appopriate one, nonetheless) their point of view. So, no, I don't agree not to criticize your beliefs, or anyone elses.

> Another thing is you only
> attacked one religion if Christianity is false it
> proves nothing. Being a follower of the religion of
> secrets we are aware of this.

Yes, I only attacked one religion. It was, after all, the religion you brought to the table to discuss, and so that's what framed our discussion. And I attacked it. I can also attack Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism...granted, I have a bit more familiarity with Judeo-Christian scriptures, but my basic premise remains the same. There is no God. There never has been, and most likely never will be.

> interpetation of any holy book. Please take down the
> insults you have put about mee from your site than we
> shall continue this discussion.

As I said, your messages have been taken down. The insults will remain, but your last
name is gone, so everyone can just read that I had a disagreement with some "Joey" and
that'll be it.

Chris Stuart

"an euntropunur, a freelance journalist, written severial screenplays, sings classical
music and a member of the relgion of secrets" Jesus Christ and his all girl band.

After a little bit of research into internet law (mostly looking at other pages that have
received threats of being shut down from people angry at their emails being posted), I found
out that there's very little that can be done against you if you web-publish unsolicted
emails you receive. And, as these emails were very much unsolicited, they stay. I'm still
debating how to tell Joey.

After a brief foray into Internet law research, I have found that I completely legally
allowed to post your emails to me online (as long as I donít alter them to say something
you didnít sayÖand believe me, I wonít. I appreciate them in all their misspelled bent
logic glory), as you sent them to me unsolicited. Internet law is still on the side of
the recipients of unsolicited email, rather than the senders. So, as of me discovering
this, my webpage featuring our 1999 conversation has been reinstated, legal slander/libel
warts and all.

> You have been blocked from his e-mail address.
>
>=====
>I fell into the river and what did I see
>
>Black eyed angel swam with me.-Radiohead

For further reference, if you get into any more conversations out of your depth, and don't know how to get out of them, the automatic notifications of being blocked from someone do not come out of the person's individual account with the signature appended (it is a nice signature though, I'll give you that much), so if you were trying to mimic an automatic message, you failed.